LUCKNOW VIKAS PRADHIKARAN Vs. DEVINDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the purpose of decision of this appeal we do not think it necessary to give in detail the averments of the parties. Suffice it to say that the present Appellant advertised in 1982 for allotment of residential plots under the Gomti Nagar Housing Scheme. The present respondent Devindra Kumar got himself registered for allotment of a plot in that scheme and paid Rs. 4,000/ - as registration fees. Allotment letter was issued in his favour on 15th April, 1995 allotting him one plot B -4/57, MIG Vijay Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. He was asked to deposit the first instalment by 30th December, 1985. Price had to be paid in instalments. However, the scheme was challenged before the High Court on the ground that it was illegal. The matter went upto Supreme Court which passed the final order approving the scheme. On account of pendency of the litigation, the allottee i.e. complainant did not deposit the first instalment as well as the subsequent instalments. In the meantime, the present Appellant cancelled the allotment made in favour of the complainant -Devindra Kumar for non -payment of instalments. The complainant filed complaint before the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow which was accepted and the following direction was issued :

(2.) FEELING aggrieved of that order the opposite party i.e. the present Appellant filed this appeal before this Commission. When the case was taken up by this Commission on 14.2.95, after hearing the Counsel for the Appellant we came to the conclusion that the order passed by the State Commission is perfectly just and fair and it would ordinarily not call for any interference. At that stage Counsel for the Appellant stated that the plot in question has already been allotted by the Appellant to some third party and its possession has also been delivered to that part) prior to the commencement of the proceedings before the State Commission. This Commission remarked that if it is so, the Appellant will have to allot some other plot of similar measurement and situation to the respondent (i.e. complainant) charging the same rate as has been demanded in respect of the original plot. The Counsel for the Appellant sought adjournment to seek instructions and this appeal was adjourned for the limiced purpose of enabling the Counsel for the Appellant to make his submission on the aforementioned point alone. On the adjourned date the Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Appellant was prepared to offer to the complainant a plot situated very near to the original plot and having the same advantages namely Plot No. B /4/35 in the same scheme and in the same Khand. On that date nobody was present on behalf of the respondent and it appeared that no intimation had been sent to him about the posting of the case. It was ordered that notice be sent to the Authorised Representative of the respondent namely Shri S.N. Lal Saxena intimating him that this case will be taken up preemptorily for final disposal on 5th April, 1995. On 5th April, 1995 the respondent did not appear but sent a letter dated 1st April, 1995 that he was confined to bed. The case was adjourned with the direction that it shall be posted preemptorily after two weeks. However, the case was posted on 27th November, 1995. On that date again nobody appeared for the respondent.